Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] Question - Erratum 4097 (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 30 January 2015 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A779B1A891C for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.972
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CihcGK2X9QRO for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 270EE1A8919 for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id m3jG1p0075Geu28013jGK7; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:43:16 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id m3jF1p00C1KKtkw013jGuH; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:43:16 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0U3hF4r031104; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:43:15 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id t0U3hEGV031101; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:43:14 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: worley set sender to using -f
To: Julius Friedman <>
In-Reply-To: <> (
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:43:14 -0500
Message-ID: <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1422589396; bh=JF4GXO/11TCccXBMRoOon1r4FP+YDKGGIHcLNbshi4E=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=hZGr6XXAnaDAuyfMQwoBnL7cqrJdsd4kbs5kFneKxTSA1EQvq11k9BbI0xP1PXkt1 JddtQoaaud6A/PhFUPATVIV1ry9XsEn9xQzRbJT70DZlSJMBMcImRYZvBEzu8qwAR0 rgv9e7yHhrqg1GmooaT/8GXmR4gLVNk9mm+L6HGaslkX+HQ6prRYTRNWos4VSUuwr+ T+Isx2WAX3XLma6jg1Hh/qI/itwmhMEbvVULnouUcZTt1EJzffEp/UlUrZ2/F8Yd6l N61rRopUYcf0oyUfn0t3rEIpADSj4/vKtKxZSiM5XUzA098zEHq7O4ALzxelZHMBHt YcXNGqKvwEXTw==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] Question - Erratum 4097
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:43:19 -0000

Julius Friedman <> writes:
> What about another divisor and or some text which states that if there is a
> modulo that the frame height may have to be computed alternately?

I don't understand you here.  You seem to be proposing that another
divisor for representing JPEG size be used, 256 rather than 8.  But that
is an incompatible technical change.  In RFC 2435 there is not intended
to be any alternative way to represent the frame height and width.

> The fact that the image is incorrect makes this errata, the fact that the
> verbiage in the RFC also allows for  via (RFC2435)
> 4.1 <>.  The Type Field
> Which makes this erratum because images which are advertised as supported
> cannot be viewed or are distorted when the "reference" code is to be used
> with such images and is NOT stated in the RFC....
> Please advise.

As far as I can see, you mean to say that the RFC claims to be able to
be able to transmit JPEGs that it cannot.  Can you explain this in more
detail?  (My understanding is that the RFC provides an encoding method
for *some* JPEGs, that the image data is a stream of JPEGs, but not all
JPEGs can be used in RFC 2435 data streams.)